| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: How America Lost the War on Drugs |
 |
|
Jolly good. Ron Paul is obviously a classic Republican in my judgement. However, I really don't think the mindless masses are at all ready for just saying no. Why? Because there's hardly proper knowledge of these banned substances. The majority view is that banned substances are bad, dangerous and should continue to be banned, when in actuality, many of these substances are substantially less harmful than sugar and when administered in a controlled and professional setting (see the difference between the prescription of diacetylmorphine in a hospital setting vs the injection of street heroin using an unsterile needle under a bridge) are amongst the safest drugs available. A vote for Ron Paul would be a wasted vote at this stage I think, regretably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
| Fun reading the armchair musings of potheads who had to move overseas to escape reality. |
Well it looks like one of the drug war's number one enemies over the past decade has been us pot heads.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: How America Lost the War on Drugs |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| A vote for Ron Paul would be a wasted vote at this stage I think, regretably. |
This logic does not stand up on a number of levels. By it then, the only vote not wasted is one for the winner. So let's all vote for the winner, 100% to 0% so that no votes are wasted. 
A well-supported loser still shifts the focus of the debate. Even if Ron Paul loses, there will be more talk about getting out of Iraq, getting the feds out of drug prohibition, changing our money policy, etc. The more support he gets, the more such talk there will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: Re: How America Lost the War on Drugs |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| A vote for Ron Paul would be a wasted vote at this stage I think, regretably. |
This logic does not stand up on a number of levels. By it then, the only vote not wasted is one for the winner. So let's all vote for the winner, 100% to 0% so that no votes are wasted.
A well-supported loser still shifts the focus of the debate. Even if Ron Paul loses, there will be more talk about getting out of Iraq, getting the feds out of drug prohibition, changing our money policy, etc. The more support he gets, the more such talk there will be. |
You are, of course, absolutely right. I suppose what I meant by 'a waste' is that any candidate singing the praises of decriminalization is not gonna win the presidency. The standard of debate and knowledge on banned substances is, at this stage, much too poor. The public are simply incapable of making a truly informed choice as to what we should do with these drugs. That our course of action is to keep up and even intensify the war despite the enemy multiplying itself thousands of times over since the start of the war reflects this massive dearth of common understanding. If by some miracle such a person did win, a Ron Paul administration would be very slow and hesitant in ending prohibition. It ('a waste of vote') was a very poor point though for the reasons you give above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
LEGALIZE IT!!
that will stop the war on drugs!!
make drugs a traded commodity like everything else..
no more fighting and killing each other for it..
just go to your drug store and buy X , speed or heroin!
weed.. sold at any 7-11 . or just grow your own..
its the only way!! the people have spoken!! its simple, humans like to get
MESSED UP!!
we need to go with the times also..
the whole club scene has changed! alcohol just wont do for half the clubbers in the world.. they want Ecstacy.. and frankly there will be far less violence if 90% of the people in the club were on X... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
LEGALIZE IT!!
that will stop the war on drugs!!
make drugs a traded commodity like everything else..
no more fighting and killing each other for it..
just go to your drug store and buy X , speed or heroin!
weed.. sold at any 7-11 . or just grow your own..
its the only way!! the people have spoken!! its simple, humans like to get
MESSED UP!!
we need to go with the times also..
the whole club scene has changed! alcohol just wont do for half the clubbers in the world.. they want Ecstacy.. and frankly there will be far less violence if 90% of the people in the club were on X... |
Hell yeah dude. Did you know that Washington grew weed? Damn right dude. That's why there's stars on the American flag. Washington got Betsy Ross really baked on his slave-grown chronic and she was seeing stars.
If everyone were on X at clubs, we'd be happy and there wouldn't be war. We would just rub each others shoulders and backs and then have peace talks in the car on the way home from parties.
Then presidents would be DJ's and there would be different music nations. Like, America would be a hip hop nation, and Europe would be Trancezone, except England, which would be Drum and Bass place. We could travel freely and do coke with pilots on the airplane to our different destinations. We would dance on the street to our jobs, which would be functions to support the world party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does the state have the right to determine what the people consume? For me, that is the ultimate question. Do I own my body, or does Harper? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The SC ruled last year or the year before (I can't remember) that the Canadian Government can deem certain substances dangerous and criminalize them for our safety.
It seems we'll have to try another way to get drugs legalized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
The SC ruled last year or the year before (I can't remember) that the Canadian Government can deem certain substances dangerous and criminalize them for our safety.
It seems we'll have to try another way to get drugs legalized. |
what is the point?
i can literally smoke a fattie while railing pills and have a needle in my arm while loitering in front of the RCMP.
where you might wonder?
Van city.
no need to decriminalize it in my opinion.
now safe injection sites are a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keeping it illegal means you are adding value to something with little value. It also means that instead of the government making money (which could then go into prevention programs or rehab or even our debt) criminal organizations make money and then we spend money trying to stop them.
Also, when you make something illegal you make people criminals. The history of E is the perfect example of a harmless substance being singled out thus making millions of people criminals.
Legalize it, corpratize it, tax it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Keeping it illegal means you are adding value to something with little value. It also means that instead of the government making money (which could then go into prevention programs or rehab or even our debt) criminal organizations make money and then we spend money trying to stop them.
Also, when you make something illegal you make people criminals. The history of E is the perfect example of a harmless substance being singled out thus making millions of people criminals.
Legalize it, corpratize it, tax it. |
Your point has merit.
BC was going to decriminalize cannabis. I thought that was going to be good.
However I learnt that if a police officer were to catch you smoking, under decriminalization, they would simply just give you a ticket, much like speeding.
The problem is that under the current system, criminalization, police simply turn a blind eye without a fine.
so, it seemed a little pointless for BC.
I do support you ideas though, in theory. Reality of course is a different story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In America, the Feds have used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify their intervention into State marijuana initiatives. The Commerce Clause allows the Federal gov't to regulate interstate commerce. And SCOTUS has interpreted that right very liberally.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court found that marijuana is subject to the Commerce Clause.
How could Marijuana grown in a co-op for purely medical purposes be subject to interstate commerce? It goes back to one of FDR's disastrous socialist programs. In Wickard v. Filburn, the court held that Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 could be used to limit farmers' crop sizes. You'll remember that FDR packed the Supreme Court with two extra justices in the Court-Packing Act of 1937. Well, when the AAA of 1938 came under fire, the court filed in line behind the old socialista.
| Quote: |
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July of 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess area 239 bushels. |
Sounds like some madness straight out of Mao's China. But that was the wonder and beauty of the New Deal!
At any rate, in 2005 the court, rather than striking down that abomination of a precedent, decided to use Wickard to attack a medical marijuana co-op. In her Dissent in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case, Justice O'Connor quoted Louis Brandeis (my avatar):
| Louis Brandeis wrote: |
| Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that �a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. |
She continued:
| J. O'Connor wrote: |
| Relying on Congress� abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one�s own home for one�s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California�s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What makes me crazy about the "war on Drugs" is that there is no other debate (that I can think of anyway) where one side has no factual scientific information whatsoever to back up their side, yet they always seem to get their way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| What makes me crazy about the "war on Drugs" is that there is no other debate (that I can think of anyway) where one side has no factual scientific information whatsoever to back up their side, yet they always seem to get their way. |
official 9-11 theory would fall in that category too.
but that is a different issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
